What Works for Children with Literacy Difficulties? - Digital ...

23 RITA (Reader’s Intelligent Teaching Assistant)
The data for IA&T here are identical to those for the pre- and post-test in the entry for IA&T
above.
Main reference: Nicolson et al. (1999)
Date: not stated (1997–98?)
Age-range: Y2-3
Type of children: Low attainment
Ns of experimental groups: (Y2) 58; (Y3) 16, in 4 schools in total
Ns of control groups: (Y2) 58; (Y3) 45, in different schools
Ns of alternative intervention groups: (Y2) 59; (Y3) 36, in same 4 schools and classes as
experimentals but in previous year
Nature of alternative intervention: called ‘Traditional’ in Nicolson et al. (2000) but actually
the experimentals in Interactive Assessment and Teaching (IA&T) – see separate entry
Equivalence of groups: matched on age and reading performance
Length of intervention in weeks: 17
Tests: Wechsler Objective Reading Dimension (WORD) reading and spelling
Ns, pre- and post-test average standardised scores and s.d’s, and effect sizes calculated
using pooled pre- test s.d’s:
Reading Standard Score Spelling Standard Score
Intervention Pre-test Post-test Effect Pre-test Post-test Effect
type M s.d. M s.d. size M s.d. M s.d. size
Y2
RITA 89.60 3.41 90.81 3.61 0.30 80.19 6.67 88.66 8.91 0.98
Control 89.74 4.01 89.41 5.30 84.49 8.65 86.24 9.79
AI (IA&T) 89.03 3.51 92.76 7.46 0.94 84.26 8.97 91.67 10.57 0.95
Y3
RITA 79.69 3.50 87.13 12.21 1.34 78.38 5.50 84.44 8.02 0.77
Control 79.49 5.55 80.53 7.01 81.19 7.87 83.22 8.22
AI (IA&T) 79.94 3.41 83.31 3.61 0.61 82.64 6.67 88.28 8.91 0.72
Ratio gains: n/a
Statistical significances: Experimentals and AI groups in both year groups made
significantly greater gains than controls; experimental and AI groups did not differ
130